Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Can we PLEASE have a third party now???

Democratic Party chairmanHoward Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel...."The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite," the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. "We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

Almost two years ago, I cited a Kerry supporter in Ohio, quoted by Ted Rall, with having the worst reason ever for opposing the war in Iraq: "We shouldn't be over there building them back up because they didn't build our towers back up." I think Dr. Dean may have just trumped that. As Rall said about the Ohio voter, Dean "is wrong on so many levels that it makes my brain hurt." I hate to have to spell it out, but it is probably important to do so.

First off, the anti-Semite charge is as absurd as it is ubiquitous. Opposing Israel's policies is not anti-Semitism, any more than Dean's criticism of Bush's policies is anti-Christian. Bad policies should be criticized, and all policies should be questioned. Those who do the questioning are not necessarily racist. Many of the most vocal critics of Israeli policy are Jews--certainly in this town! Of course, they get called "anti-Semites" as well.

Next, Dr. Dean puts together a sentence that would be Bushian in its logic if its structure weren't so complicated--so I'll call it Ricean: "We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah." First, he seems to be buying the nonsense that bringing democracy to Iraq was the reason for the war, and then immediately contradicts that very notion by saying that we turned it over to Maliki (rather than him being elected by the purple-finger crowd). Second, he suggests as obvious that Israel's destruction of Lebanon has anything to do with defending itself. And third, his idea that the leaders of other countries have to say this or condemn that at his command couldn't be more Ricean.

Of course, the most troubling thing is that the so-called leader of the so-called opposition uses his most heated rhetoric to defend the honor of the country--Israel.